tv [untitled] April 27, 2012 7:30pm-8:00pm EDT
pearce and myself were walking down the street and you asked law enforcement to pick out the person who they suspect would be here undocumented they're not going to be pointing at mr. pearce. they're going to be pointing at me. they have to use race in order to enforce senate bill 1070. that's the unfortunate part. and mr. chairman, if senate bill 1070 was so popular, why did the sponsor get recalled out of his own legislative district? the end of the day this bill is bad public policy for the state of arizona. it has put a black cloud over the state of arizona. it has given us a negative image it's going to take us years to get out from underneath. it is poor public policy. >> legislation, as you know, is before the supreme court tomorrow. we reached out to many arizona officials. i'll say this for mr. pearce. he was the only one who would come. if you believe in the law, if you voted for the law, if you're enforcing the law, why can't you come and defend it? but mr. pearce was the only one who would come.
he's had his opportunity to make his case. governor brewer didn't want to come. we reached out far and wide to incumbent officials who supported the law. no one would come. which says something, i think. about the law. but it also is, to your credit, mr. pearce, that at least you have the integrity to come here. i wanted to ask senator deconcini, the clip you showed, which was powerful and moving, i take it that happens frequently. >> mr. chairman, i don't have factual information to give you a number. >> i'm not asking. >> but i'm told -- >> mr. pearce was sort of making it seem like it's an exception, and -- >> i'm told by law enforcement officials, the sheriff of pima county has conveyed to me that yes, that happens. and he feels that his deputies should not have to be put in the
position of being liable if they should not ask someone. >> mr. gallardo, are you familiar with how the -- well, it hasn't had much time to be enforced because it was enjoined. >> and mr. chairman, i think that's -- >> i think the clip was actually before the law was passed, is that right? >> mr. chairman, it had passed both houses, and the governor signed it about three days later. but the intent was there obviously and law enforcement knew it was going to pass. >> go ahead, senator gallardo. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think that's the critical part of senate bill 1070. it has not even been fully enacted. yes, we are still already seeing the consequences over the past two years. we have julio mora who was arrested, detained, brought in. and he's a u.s. citizen. these are situations after situation after situation. juan varela, a united states citizen who gets in an argument just days after governor brewer
signs the bill, and violence occurs and mr. varela is dead over senate bill 1070. these are the unintended consequences that comes from legislation when the state tries to fix what is ultimately a federal immigration problem and then forces law enforcement to try to enforce it. and then there's penalties against any law enforcement officer who doesn't enforce it. >> are you familiar with any other statute in arizona where a private citizen can sue because the individual officer was not enforcing the law? >> not one. not one, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, i have not done the research but i served as a county attorney. i knew of no laws at that time. that was at the end of last century i must say. and i haven't read every law. but i talk to police officers all the time. i know of no other law. perhaps there are some but i don't know of any. >> we couldn't find one. there may be one or two but it's certainly the exception to the rule. mr. pearce. >> mr. chairman, it is the exception if there is.
>> yes. mr. pearce, you get the last word before i conclude here. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman. you know, i get a little disappointed that we're the bad guys for enforcing the law. first of all, proposition 200 passed in 2004 overwhelmingly by the citizens of the state of arizona also has that right of action to citizens to sue their government if they're giving out benefits to knows that are ineligible. >> what is that one? >> proposition 200. known as -- >> is that an immigration law? >> it dealed with voter fraud and proof of citizenship. no benefits for those in the country illegally. and that right of action is in that bill. >> did that allow law enforcement explicitly to be sued i? don't think so. >> it was just the benefits. and this -- i don't mean to argue with you but i'll correct you again. the law enforcement helped write that section. they got qualified immunity in that bill. qualified immunity to enforce
the law. has to do with officials, the policy, setting, position, and agencies that set those policies. >> okay. >> but i'm a little disappointed in folks talking about embarrassed for the state of arizona. 2-1 across this country we have a national crisis. and everyone wants to ignore that. the cost of the damage, the crime. and we can go through this. and if i had the time, mr. chairman, we were allowed the time i could give you a lot more information too. instead these little anecdotal things that we pick out a victim that said -- you know, because all of us are disappointed when inappropriate action is taken on anybody. this bill -- and again, illegal is a crime, not a race. it doesn't pick out any nationality. just so happens 90% of those who violate our immigration laws come from across that southern border are hispanic. this law doesn't pick those out. i mean, common sense, if i've got three young kids in the middle of sun city at 3:00 in the morning i don't care what color they are. they're going to get stopped and questioned.
kids don't live in sun city. 3:00 in the morning's another element. i mean, just a little common sense. mr. chairman, we have a national crisis. and yet we continue to ignore it. you know, and there are some that run for office talking about build the darn fence but never hear it again once they're elected. i think americans are a little tired of the drive-by statements by politicians instead of dealing with the issue at hand, enforce our laws. secure our border. it's not too much to ask, mr. chairman. >> we've made big progress in that direction, sir. let me conclude by saying this. first, let me thank the witnesses. i'm sure it didn't escape notices that none of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle came to this hearing. that's not surprising. they're absent from this hearing just as they've been absent from every attempt we've made to negotiate a comprehensive solution to our immigration problem. we need people to sit down, people on both sides of the aisle in a bipartisan way and solve this problem.
we have been unable to find negotiating partners. and so the absence of people here today not only shows an unwillingness both in arizona and here in washington of them to defend this law or be associated with this law, but it shows an absence of an ability, it's broader. we don't have anyone sitting down and saying here's what we want to do to solve this immigration problem. we get a lot of rhetoric out there on the campaign trail, but we don't get any action, even if they would disagree with the kind of proposal that i and my colleagues have made to do that. and so they're not here. it's not surprising. it's been typical in terms of being absent on the entire immigration debate except in terms of rhetoric, sometimes unfortunately very inflammatory. with that i am going to close
this hearing and thank our witnesses. i just have to do a little housekeeping here. the record will remain open until tuesday may 1st, 2012, for further testimony and questions. i'd like to thank individuals and groups for submitting testimony for the record without objection it will be added. that includes the u.s. conference of catholic bishops, the american immigration council, the rights working group, and the american civil liberties union. i'm asking unanimous consent, these statements be inserted into the record. and my colleagues have till may 12th to put in statements as well. i thank the witnesses again, and the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
>> lone guy. you know. i understood that. but i believe in the law. i'm going to defend the law. >> senator kyl didn't come here -- >> yes, i am. yes, i am. this is legislation. 200,000 left the state of arizona. crime's down. cost is down. we know it works. i'm disappointed. we lead this nation. we're at the front of the parade on this issue. the other states are proud of what arizona's done.
and the governor has stepped out to support this bill after signing it. and yeah, i'm disappointed that others weren't here to do it. >> you criticized politicians who take a drive-by approach to immigration. do you feel confident that mitt romney is going to follow through on that? >> i hope not. he had the same advisers when he ran four years ago. i believe he's very sincere. and again, good people can disagree. good people can disagree. you know, and i'm always disappointed in someone who wants to take this to mean-spirited rhetoric. it's very disappointing. i'm a passionate guy. kind of reminds me of herman cain who was getting a little loud and kind of looked like an evangelical preacher the other day and then he backed down and said my wife tells me to tone it down, i sound mean. he said i'm not mean, i'm passionate. and i am too. >> [ inaudible question ]. >> that's the difference. latinos that are american support this overwhelmingly. in '06 we had four ballot
initiatives on the ballot. they voted 60% on all four of those. so why do we demean -- >> but why -- >> hold on. why do you demean the hispanic community? why do you demean them? for some reason -- >> is it true -- >> hang on. one question at a time. why would we think they're less of an american than us? i deal with these groups all over. albert rodriguez. anna gaines. immigrants who come here. folks who have fought for this country, had -- and other groups. they love this country as much as you and i. i find it demeaning to them to assume they support illegal just because they're hispanic. that's not fair. that's not fair to them. >> is it true you are -- >> is it true what? >> that you are linked to people investing in prisons? >> no, it's not true. it's an absolute lie by npr. invented the story. not even a little bit of truth to it.
i find it amazing that somebody would -- i think they woke up from a dream and just wrote an article. there was absolutely no truth to that article at all. zero. >> four years ago you said the supreme court will fight for in favor of sb-1070. are you still that optimistic? >> i am. i think it will probably be a 5-3. kagan should recuse herself. she's already written the solicitor general. she recused herself on employer sanctions. i think -- my guess is she'll recuse herself again. if not then it will be a 5-4 decision. recuse herself it will be a 5-3 decision. i'm fairly confident on this. >> do you feel you were set up here today even though you volunteered? >> i'm not going to go that far. i knew the risk of coming here. and i knew that i would have the odds -- i knew that everybody on that panel would probably be against me, the democrats especially who are pro amnesty, call it reform. i like the term. but i knew that. and i'm willing to defend arizona whether i'm one guy in a crowd or whether i have colleagues with me because the majored of americans stand with
me. and i'll stand for americans and those citizens who have a right to have laws enforced. >> why wasn't senator jon kyl here to -- >> you'll have to ask senator jon kyl. >> the fact is if you were set up, if some of your republican colleagues bothered to show up maybe we would have gotten a more balanced hearing? >> maybe. but i don't know their reasoning and i don't want to speak for them. if they thought it was going to be unfair, i kind of would have appreciated a phone call with their concerns. i didn't get that either. but again, i'm not one to run from what i believe the right thing to do. i have my moral compass. i know right from wrong. >> the campaign is making a big point of insisting that they weren't saying that sb-1070 was a model. >> who said that? >> the romney campaign. >> they're backing off. >> how do you feel about that? >> i'm not going to comment on -- i haven't read that. >> self-deportation. remember that? >> right. and that's in sb-1070. >> but he said he wasn't referring to it as a model.
is that what you took from it at the time? >> absolutely. >> and how do you feel about them saying that wasn't it? >> again, i'm not going to get into specifics. i can tell you the folks who said as his advisers on this i have worked with for years. i know romney's a compassionate man as most of us i'd like to think are. but i also think he understands the crisis and the damage to this republic and the need to enforce our laws, secure our borders. and i admire that about him. >> you said you shared some tears with dream act students at a.s.u. when was that? where was that? >> it actually was at the convention at the downtown during the last election, 2010. we went off into the corner about a half dozen of us. and i have to admit, you know, i was very touched. these were exceptional kids. and i understood their plight. again, that's why i say exceptions i think can be carved out. but you can't just do blanket policies and forgive the world for breaking our laws. or use taxpayer dollars to subsidize them. >> if you support their plight would you support a dream act specifically targeted at those
students? >> i think we have those exceptions. it's like reform. congress has a hard time getting much of anything right now. anytime they do something -- 26-year record high unemployment, record foreclosures but we think it's okay to import illegal foreign labor. they never learned how to separate workers is not a path to citizenship. there's two separate categories. some people come here to work here. that's why they'll never get it right and never get anything passed because most -- >> would you support a carve-out just for students, for those dream act students? >> i think each one has to be taken individually. i will not support any blanket policy. >> are you confident that sb-1070 is going to prevail in court tomorrow? >> yes, absolutely. very confident. >> what if it doesn't? >> they won't rule on it for a few months. >> if they get rid of part of it, are you -- any part of those four different aspects would
render the bill obsolete or -- >> it's already been proved constitutional and the courts have already agreed. there's only four sections of the ten that are in question and i believe all four of those will be upheld. again, read the bill. it's all mirrored after federal law and constitutional. i wrote it very carefully. chris colbach and i sat down and went through every line -- i consider him the number one attorney in the nation on pre-emption issues. we knew we would be sued. we knew we'd go to court. we wrote it to go to the supreme court. >> let's talk about one of those specification sections. under federal law it is a civil offense for a person to seek work when they're not documented. under arizona law it becomes a criminal offense. so tell me exactly how we're mirroring federal law here. >> civil -- and that's one of the greatest misunderstandings. civil under federal law is a criminal offense. you can get fined and go to jail for it. it's not the same as state civil. we need to make sure that's clear.
entering and remaining here under federal law is a crime. >> senator, what if the supreme court decides that all of those four sections are unconstitutional? >> well, again, states still have -- all this did is put it into state law in a manner to be enforced and eliminate policies. 1070 shouldn't have been necessary except for illegal sanctuary policies were imposed by police chiefs and mayors all across arizona. that's why it's in place. to remove those illegal, illegal policies. and we've done that. the major part of sb-1070 is in full force. and the others are important sanctions. i wouldn't have written them in there if they weren't important, but i'm very confident the supreme court will uphold that. >> but what if the supreme court doesn't? >> well, again, that doesn't really change much of anything. if they don't uphold it, it will be a chilling effect on other states wanting to model sb-1070 but it doesn't change inherent constitutional police powers the
states have. i've been enforcing immigration laws since i was a puppy in march of 1970 when i was at the sheriff's office. it was never an issue. it's never been pre-empted. the states have never been pre-empted, never been pre-empted. in case you didn't catch that, howie, i'm going to say, that the states have never been pre-empted. >> but the fact is if the supreme court concludes the states do not have this plenary authority you that keep insisting -- >> no, that won't be the decision. the decision is whether the states can mirror the state statute versus just following federal statute. that's really the issue. people seem ton be able to get that right. it won't remove one piece of states' inherent police powers. not one. is it important? yeah. it's important. >> but if they deny this as part of states' police power to get involved -- >> i don't think -- >> so you're making the prediction here that's fine. but if the supreme court does -- i realize you're brilliant, walk on water. but if the supreme court doesn't see it your way -- if the supreme court even rules 4-4 and
you lose, it would seem to me that the justices would be saying no, the states don't have that authority. >> well, no is a failure and you're right but it wouldn't be saying no. it would just not be passed be didn't have that majority vote. but the point is, it will pas. secondly, it's the same issues with employer sanctions when they rule in 5-2 decisions. the preemption issue is the same. i'm getting tired of misinformation as we try to get a good bill in protection of our zit sennes. i love my country. i love and respect those who come here legally and many who don't, i know are not bad people. many of them are, but some are good people escaping a terrible life and i understand that, but we have a method of coming here and those laws must --
>> senator kyl released a statement, what do you have to say to that? >> i don't entirely disagree. they don't have a vote. the supreme court does and schumer can run his bill. he may get it out of his committee, but that's where it will die. it's a property bill supported across america. i guarantee you, even get it heard in the house. >> was it worth your while to come out here today? >> absolutely. again, i wrote the bill, i feel obligated. even though you worry about decorum and say what needs to be said, i think it's important that i come out here and represent the state of arizona. >> even though there were only two senators up there, you can it was productive. >> it doesn't matter if there were two or 15 up there. but the story that's going to be told is in the media. >> there were a lot of youth mentioned during this hearing. what is your message to them and
their speck daific cases? you want to see them leave the country? >> my heart goes out to them, but again, those exceptions have been carved out properly. no blanket policy. my heart goes out to some of them and i'm not apologetic for having sat down with them and very tearful in terms of my -- but still, my kid who is go to jail who break the law. every day. americans. my heart is touched by parents of kids who make terrible decisions every day. i can't change that. the laws must be enforced. >> can't get in kids like this? >> must be enforced. >> so, it's not -- >> it's not -- first of all, only federal government can can fix it. going to spend a lot of time with states that don't have control. states have no ability to accept conditions coming here or
remaining. exclusive. >> said he was embarrassed in part because of sb 1070. how do you respond to that? >> he's a friend, but i'm going to be candid here. maybe he shares the same feeling that michelle obama feels like when she was only proud of america when they elected her husband. i'm proud of this country. i'm not embarrassed that we enforce laws. what i'm embarrassed for is for the victims. up to 9,000 americans a year killed as illegal aliens. i'm embarrassed by a government that doesn't have a respect for the constitution of the rule of law of the citizens, the wages suppressed. the cost is immeasurable. that's what i'm embarrassed about. is those that refuse to do something about the damage to americans. >> senator, how do you respond to the information that came out yesterday and showed immigration from mexico, now it's a net
zero. seems like it's going the opposite way. over the past five years though. >> yeah, partly the recession. what's happening in arizona isn't happening in other states around us. violent crime's down in arizona. no other states are are experiencing that kind of reduction. we've gone from 49th in the nation to number sixth in job recovery, economic and job growth and economic recovery. so arizona's done some things right. media may not print it. we've done a lot of things right. >> senators kyl and -- come or were you surprised -- >> had no idea. >> were you expecting them to be here to support you? >> yes, i was. it's not about me. this is about state's rights. this is is difference in a right to enforce the law, protect the citizens. this is arizona's right to protect jobs r for americans. let's take it a step farther like judge roberts said, it's arizona's obligation to do that.
>> quick question and i know -- are you surprised or disappointed that for example, you didn't have senator kyl here or any other republicans here for that matter. >> probably had good reasons. i would have appreciated a phone call. this is his state. this is about state's rights. arizona has certain rights under this constitution and this is about defending arizona's right. it's overwhelmingly supported by arizona and across the nation. it's passed. signed into law and a federal law that arizona took a lead in the nation to solve this national crisis. over 50% of the others come through arizona and unlike vegas, what goes on in anthony doesn't stay. >> so, but are you disappointed?
i understand what you're saying, but are you disappointed that he didn't show up, but no other republican senator also didn't show up. >> of course, they are. >> why do you think -- >> i have no idea. be unfair for me to assume. i haven't had that conversation. >> are you aware of the arguments that having the unwanted effect of causing economic problems because the lack of labor? >> absolutely not true. heritage foundation, most -- we did this study in maricopa county. that illegal demographic, three times out of -- no. those myths have to be set aside. they're just not true.
well, you know, about 26-year high unemployment. if you're paying americans the right wage, there's not a job they won't do. one of the problems, i agree, we're raised kids today that don't know how to -- they don't want to work in a sweat environment. they want the air-conditioning job. that's part of our problem and we admit that. >> what are you hoping that the supreme court will take into consideration? a lot of people are saying they will weigh the whole racial profiling discrimination, something that sb-1070 does promote and generate. >> it prohibits. i don't know how they can say it. supreme court always said you can ask that question as legitimate as asking your age, date of birth, but no restrictio restrictions. slapped down the circuit court
decision that said that question was silly. said not true. you can't use racial profiling. you have to have legitimate contact. we put safeguards the federal government doesn't. are. >> are you confident that federal officers all over the state of arizona are following that direction? >> yes, i am. i've seen them. i've watched the training. i know the good hearts of those folks. you're going to find -- you may not agree with, but absolutely. these are good men and women trying to do their job and are cautious and careful and respectful to civil liberties. >> your prediction --